Shift U.s. Foreign Policy To Promote Democracy Abroad

COMMENTARY

July 31, 1991|By DAVID BRODER, Washington Post Writers Group

Throughout the months leading up to the Persian Gulf war, President Bush reiterated that ``we have no quarrel with the Iraqi people.`` Time and again, he said, ``Our only quarrel is with Saddam Hussein.``

But the war that he unleashed brought death to thousands of Iraqis and privation to the citizens of that unhappy land. Yet it left the government of Saddam Hussein still in power -- and still causing problems at home and abroad.

That is an extreme example of the difficulty that dogs this president`s foreign policy and threatens to dim the accomplishments of this week`s Moscow summit. Time and again, the Bush administration has shaped its actions to reward or punish a foreign government and has ignored or minimized the consequences for the people of that land.

Where Jimmy Carter gave priority to human rights and Ronald Reagan to ideology, President Bush`s world view gives far greater weight to current power relationships, national security interests and vital resource needs. Those priorities are not necessarily wrong. But they are clear -- and they have consequences.

Bush was swift to lift economic sanctions against South Africa -- a nation in which we have significant strategic, economic and resource interests -- even though the struggle for freedom there is far from complete.

He is adamant in opposing measures to restrict credits and trade with China, even though a clear majority in Congress regards that government`s treatment of its own citizens as unacceptable. Bush argues that his way will increase our influence with Beijing`s current rulers. He appears willing to ignore the effect of our actions on Chinese who are struggling for democracy.

When it comes to the Soviet Union, Bush`s instinct is, once again, to focus on the men in charge. For a long time, that meant no one but Mikhail Gorbachev, because, it was said, no one else could sign the START treaty, reducing the level of nuclear warheads. Now that the treaty is completed, Bush is willing to meet with Russian President Boris Yeltsin and others who are challenging Gorbachev`s monopoly on power.

There is a case to be made for dealing with those in power in China, South Africa and the Soviet Union. By the same token, there was certainly a strong case for responding to the aggression of Saddam Hussein.

But we should never forget the broader consequences of our actions. Ultimately, it is the people of the Soviet Union and China, of South Africa and Iraq, who will determine the future of their countries -- and their relations with the United States.

That is why there is such force in the argument -- coming from critics both to the left and the right of Bush -- that his foreign policy, now anchored in pragmatic, short-term power considerations, needs a stronger emphasis on the long-term support of democratic forces around the world.

A striking example of that left-right convergence is the newly published essay by Larry Diamond called An American Foreign Policy for Democracy. Diamond is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank, but the essay has been published by the Progressive Policy Institute, an affiliate of the middle-road Democratic Leadership Council.

Diamond argues that Bush needs to expand his vision in order to seize the ``once-in-a-generation`` opportunity provided by the end of the Cold War. So far, he observes, Bush`s ``New World Order ... has seemed more concerned with order than with freedom, more committed to the stability of borders than to the pursuit of democracy, self-determination or justice.``

Instead of that limited agenda, Diamond proposes that ``a long-term strategy of promoting democracy ... should be the central focus, the defining feature, of our foreign policy,`` carried forward by economic assistance to fledgling democracies and the cultivation of pluralistic institutions through the National Endowment for Democracy.

Ultimately, he argues, there is no conflict between promoting democracy and building security. Experience has shown that democracies are less likely to wage war on each other, and are more likely to honor treaties, trade agreements and environmental compacts.

``Precisely because within their own borders they respect competition, civil liberties, rights of property and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which we can build a new system of international security and prosperity.``

That kind of practical idealism needs to temper the Bush administration`s penchant for dealing with today`s power elites.